I need your help to convince my
GM to give me a budget for advertising and promotion. Our competitor hammered
us in the last Arbitron because they had a huge contest they advertised for
weeks on TV. I want to do the same thing. What can I tell my GM to convince
him that we need to spend some money to promote our station? - Anonymous

Anon: You’ll notice that I
edited your question to eliminate radio station call letters. I don’t think
that’s necessary here.

First, unless you have a properly
conducted scientific study to back up your statements, my guess is that you are
only assuming that your competitor’s contest and/or TV ads caused the
“hammering” you received in Arbitron. This may or may not be correct.

The Arbitron numbers a radio
station receives are a function of many variables, and I wrote about this a
while ago. If you would like to read the article, click here Arbitron
Ratings. If you read the article, you’ll see a list of some of the
variables that may “cause” a radio station’s Arbitron numbers. In order for you
to say that your competitor’s contest and TV ads caused the increase in
Arbitron, you would have to eliminate the influence of all other variables that
may have had an affect.

Your hypothesis that the contest
and TV ads cause your competitor’s numbers may be true. I don’t know, and I’m
guessing that you don’t either. In order to make this statement, you need to
eliminate all other plausible rival hypotheses (as is said in research terms).

If and only if you eliminate
all other plausible rival hypotheses, then you can say that the contest and TV
ads caused the higher Arbitron numbers. If not, you’re just guessing.

So what do you do? If I were in
your shoes, I would go to your GM and say something like, “While I can’t prove
with any scientific certainty that our competitor’s increases in the last
Arbitron were caused by their contest and TV ads, all indications lead in that
direction. I have checked as many other influences that I can, and my analysis
shows that all other variables were constant (such as…no format changes, no
talent changes, no changes on our radio station, etc.). It is a given that we
must communicate with our listeners. The information I have collected indicates
that our competitor beat us with effective communication, not better
programming. Our business is communications and we have an excellent radio
station. It doesn’t make sense that we lose because of poor communications.”

AQH
Per Person Rating

I
was told by someone that there is something called an AQH per person rating that
every radio station receives whether they are in a rated market or not. It’s
not an AQH share, but an actual per person rating. If you’re in a small market
like a Page, AZ you would then show up in the Phoenix metro book. – Anonymous

Anon: To answer this question, I went to Dr. Ed Cohen, Director of Domestic
Radio Research for Arbitron. He said:

"The use of the word "per" in the question throws me, but
problems with the nomenclature aren’t surprising.

First, small stations do show up in Maximi$er, especially when you pull out the
individual counties. When you pull a Max run for a market and ask for "all
stations," you’ll get just about anyone (commercial and noncommercial)
that ever had a bit of cume in the market. A Max client can look at the county
that includes Page, AZ and see what stations show up there (also the user could
combine surveys to get a more reasonable sample size; Max needs a minimum of
30).

. . . the local station in Page will show up in that county [County Coverage
Report]—assuming they have listeners that have written it down in the diary.
It’s an annual report that is run for every county in the country and sold
mostly to small market stations.

In Max, you would get an AQH rating, share, persons number, and cume rating and
persons. County Coverage has the same except there is no persons numbers for AQH.
[Y]ou would see cume persons and rating, as well as AQH rating and share."

Ed asked me to make a note that the station does need to be an Arbitron client
to use the data.

Trends are preliminary numbers to feed your paranoia about how your radio
station is doing.

The 3-month trend is a rolling average of the past three months of paranoia
numbers.

Trends were started because radio people wanted them.

Trends make money for the company that produces them.

By the way, read the last page of your trends. It says:

"The estimates provided by Arbitrends are derived from the diaries that
provide the data in the Local Market Reports and are subject to the limitations
stated in those reports. Due to these limitations, inherent in Arbitron’s
methodology, the accuracy of Arbitron audience estimates cannot be determined to
any precise mathematical value or definition. Arbitrends is not part of The
Arbitron Company’s regular syndicated service and is not accredited by the
Media Rating Council (MRC)."

Arbitrends - 2

I apologize for my lack of
research basis in this question, but you are a great teacher for all of us PDs
who would rather pick up VD than have you teach us anything...so anyway...

I am curious about the phases in
Arbitron ratings, how do they work? I find it peculiar that a station in the
first phase can jump from, say, a 3.0 to a 3.5, then in the second phase jump to
a 4.3, but when the final phase comes out, the station gets a 3.3 for the book.
I see this happening a lot—where the book numbers don’t follow the trends at
all. Why is this? - Anonymous

Anon: Hey, don’t apologize
for not understanding something. The way to learn is to ask questions. Pick up
VD? I’ll have to admit that I haven’t heard that explanation before. I think
I’ll pass on a comment so I don’t get into trouble with other readers.

I have answered questions about
Arbitrends in the past, but I thought it would be best to send your question to
Bob Michaels, Vice President for Radio Programming Services at Arbitron. Bob,
and many other folks at Arbitron, have always been very gracious in helping me
answer questions, and I want to thank Bob for helping me again.

Bob said:

“Each Arbitron Phase in the
Arbitrends service is a three month average. For example, let’s consider the
Winter survey (January, February, March). Phase 1 of Winter drops January and
adds April, so the Phase 1 of Winter is the average of February-March-April.
Phase 2 of Winter then drops the then oldest month (February), and adds the
latest (May) to give the average from March-April-May. The next month (Spring
book) then consists of April, May and June.

Two things occur when each trend or
book is released: First, the oldest month is dropped, and second, the most
current month, is added. In the example you describe, when you went from a 3.0
to a 3.5, you could have dropped a low first month, or added a strong third
(current) month, or a combination of both. This is why PDs like to
“extrapolate” the most current month. Using some basic math (or software that
is readily available), you can find out if the uptick is due to dropping a low
old month or adding a strong new month. This is the value of using Arbitrends
and extrapolating.

Now you need to remember that any
particular month is only about one third of the sample size for the 3-month
period, and fluctuations in the data because of the lower sample size will
occur. But it should give you a direction for the station. If you are down
four or five individual months in a row, you have a trend and a problem. If you
see a trend like this occurring, you can alert the sales manager that the next
book will probably be lower than your current book. Or if you are trending up,
you can try to hold the spot rates on your station because you are likely to
have a better book with the next survey release.

When your station does contesting
or a major advertising campaign, do they do it for the entire survey?
Unlikely. Budget limitations restrict the length of most campaigns. This is
another reason for changes. One study I did for a major broadcast group showed
their big-money contest gave them a 20% increase in listening over the previous
year’s period in the few weeks they did the contest. Since we only have 100
share points to work with, the listening had to come from some other station.
It’s best to look at monthly data and think about which station was advertising
or contesting to see if the change in listening habits was due to these
limited-time events. Most PDs in radio today believe advertising and marketing
work—and they work well if done right. This is another reason for so-called
“fluctuations.” It’s actually a change in listening behavior for part of the
survey.

Remember, each month is part of the
quarterly survey, and changes occur. Some are created by us, others due to
sample size. What you want to look at is the trend—on an individual monthly
basis, not as a three month total—to see if the change in estimated audience
size is tracking month by month or just fluctuating.”

Roger’s comment: Bob mentioned
extrapolation in his answer. For an explanation of that, see "Extrapolation"
below.

Arbitrends and Sound

Two-part question, Doc.
First, why is it that everyone says, “It’s only a trend?” then why even bother
looking at the trends? Second, how come some stations that don’t sound
that great (lousy production and imaging, bad formatics, on-air mistakes) do
well, and some stations that sound like they’re doing everything right, can’t
get ratings? - Sandy

Sandy: Good questions.

1. For those who don’t know,
Arbitrends is a monthly service by Arbitron that shows radio station listening
between quarterly survey periods in all continuously measured markets. The
estimates are based on a three-month rolling average.

If I remember correctly, Arbitrends
was started because radio broadcasters were too nervous (paranoid?) to wait for
the book. Do you recall the philosophy I have mentioned many times in this
column? (Find out what they want, give it to them, and tell them that you gave
it to them.) Well, radio broadcasters didn’t want to wait for the ratings book
and Arbitron developed Arbitrends to satisfy the demand.

The thing about Arbitrends is that
radio people interpret them in two ways. If the trend is up, the
“interpretation” is something like, “Hey, we’re UP…we’re on a roll…we’re doing
something right.” If the trend is down, the “interpretation” is, “Don’t worry
about it, it’s only a trend.”

The blame for this dual
interpretation shouldn’t be directed at Arbitron. The blame should be directed
at the users. Arbitron merely provided over-anxious radio broadcasters with the
requested information. In addition, Arbitron provides a disclaimer for
Arbitrends:

“The estimates provided by
Arbitrends are derived from the diaries that provide the data in the Local
Market Reports and are subject to the limitations stated in those reports. Due
to these limitations, inherent in Arbitron’s methodology, the accuracy of
Arbitron audience estimates cannot be determined to any precise mathematical
value or definition. Arbitrends is not part of The Arbitron Company’s regular
syndicated service and is not accredited by the Media Rating Council (MRC).”

In other words, Arbitrends are very
broad indications of radio listening that may or may not be supported in
the book. You ask why people should look at trends. My answer is: There is no
reason to look at them. Arbitrends are for people who “gots ta know,”
regardless of the statistical reliability of the data.

Now on to your second question…

You ask, “How come some stations
that don’t sound that great (lousy production and imaging, bad formatics, on-air
mistakes) do well, and some stations that sound like they’re doing everything
right, can’t get ratings?”

Well, Sandy, the problem here is
that you say the production, imaging, etc. is lousy. You say that some stations
“sound like they’re doing everything right.” These are subjective judgments
that may not be shared by average radio listeners. My years of experience in
radio research show that average listeners don’t care much about “good”
production or “good” imaging or “good” formatics. And they don’t care much
about on-air mistakes as long as the mistake isn’t something like being off the
air for 30 minutes. In other words, what is important to you as a radio person
may not be important to a radio listener.

To answer your question, you would
have to ask the listeners. They will tell you why the radio stations that are
doing things “right” aren’t interesting to them, and they will tell you why the
radio stations that are doing things “wrong” are the radio stations they listen
to.

I’m not suggesting here that
average listeners want “junk” radio. That’s not true. What I am suggesting is
that you can’t equate your evaluation of a radio station to how listeners
evaluate the same radio station. For example, you may say that radio station A
has “great formatics, a great flow, is very tight,” and whatever else you want
to throw in. A listener may evaluate the same radio station by saying, “I don’t
like it because the DJs talk over the music.” There ya go.

Bouncing (Up and Down)
Ratings

Hi Doc: Love the column. Our
station, and others in the market, suffer from being up in one book and down the
next. You can go back and look at about three years of ratings and see a
distinct pattern of being up in the Spring and Fall, and down in the Summer and
Winter.

I have been here about a year
and a half and am trying to get a handle on this. We're not doing anything
drastically different from one book to the next, so I can't figure out why one
would be great and the next be mediocre. Have you seen this in other markets?
Anything specific we should look at? It would be nice to have two good ones
back to back! Thanks! - Anonymous

Anon I'm glad you
enjoy the column. Thanks, and on to your question . . .

Have I seen this problem before?
Yes, I have seen the same thing in virtually every radio market for the past 30+
years. The reason for the "bouncing" ratings is due to Arbitron's practice of
using different samples in each ratings' period. Different samples mean
different people and different sampling error.

I'll repeat . . . The numbers of
virtually every radio station in the United States are likely to "bounce" around
from one book to another because different samples are used for each ratings'
period. The only way to stabilize the numbers is to use the same respondents (a
panel study design) over several books or several years. This is what
Nielsen does for its metered sample, and the data are very stable.

Arbitron knows the problem exists,
and it has been around since Arbitron stated in 1949. However, the company
claims that it will use a panel study approach for its Portable People Meter.

Two major characteristics change
when different samples are used for each book: (1) The number of people
involved in the book (in-tab diaries); and (2) The demographic composition
of the sample. You can check the stability of your samples by looking at the
weighting used for each book. I guarantee that the weighting numbers in your
books are dramatically different.

Because different samples are used,
you'll always have a different number of males, females, and age cells who
participate. If there is a shortfall in any particular area, the diaries are
weighted to compensate for the shortfall.

Finally, since Arbitron does use
different samples in its diary methodology, it isn't scientifically legitimate
to compare one book to another without converting the ratings and shares to
Z-scores. Virtually everyone involved in radio treats Arbitron ratings and
shares as real numbers, but they aren't real—they are only estimates that
must be interpreted with sampling error. This is never done, but that's
life.

What can you do about it? You
can't do anything about the methodology, but you can do something about how the
data are interpreted, and that involves using Z-scores. But you, and everyone
else in the radio industry, probably won't do that.

Condensed Market

Hey Doc: What is the difference
in a condensed vs. regular rated Arbitron market? - Anonymous

Anon: I sent your question
to Bob Michaels, VP Radio Programming Services for Arbitron so I wouldn’t mess
up the definition. He said, (thanks to Bob for the help):

A Condensed Market is a market
that is small and, normally for cost reasons, desires a lower price and sample
size for its Arbitron report. Some "smaller" markets have, over time, requested
“upgrades” to a Standard market, which uses a bigger sample, is higher priced,
and has a bigger book, which means that the book has many more pages and more
demo and daypart breakouts than a Condensed market. Plus, the Standard book has
other data pages that a Condensed book doesn't have.

Arbitron’s explanation of a ratings
book shows the data included in the Standard and Condensed book—click
here for a PDF file.

County Numbers

Hey Doc. Are Arbitron county
numbers available anywhere for viewing, much like the bigger markets on the All
Access website? Numbers for our county were released last week, but since we
didn’t purchase the results, I’m having a helluva time locating this info. Any
ideas? - Anonymous

Anon: I sent your question
to Bob Michaels, Arbitron’s VP/Radio Programming Services. He wrote and said,
“I'm sorry to say that we do not publicize our County Coverage data in any
public forum. These data are only for the private use of our subscribing
stations.”